There Are Two Alleged Victims And Two Real Victims On Parliament Hill. Can You Tell Who Is Who?

When seeking the truth is considered to be Slut-Slamming by MPs responsible for the making of our laws like Megan Leslie, how are we to claim equality of justice for all?

It is becoming increasingly clear, that politicians such as the NDP’s leader Tom Mulcair and MP Megan Leslie believe that once a woman accuses a man of any wrong doing of a sexual nature that there is no need for further investigation into the matter and that any such investigation is to “re-victimise” the accuser. Here is what they both had to say about Justin Trudeau’s handling of the alleged wrong doings once he was made aware of the accusations by one of the female NDP accusers, even though he was very careful not to disclose anything the individuals did not want to disclose:

Tom Mulcair “Neither MP wanted their allegations made public.” “Anyone who went against that, of course, would be making them become victims a second time.”

Megan Leslieresponding to questions on television program,“They didn’t have consent from these women, they didn’t have permission from these women,” Ms. Leslie said. “… some people have said, ‘well, what should the Liberals have done?’ Ms. Leslie responds, “They could have asked.”

Megan Leslie appears to be saying that in such cases only the rights of the accuser as far as expectation to confidentiality, anonymity and right to be considered innocent until proved guilty need to be respected and that any suspicion, objection, or talk of self-protection against false accusations is to be considered, ‘slut-shaming’. Let’s take a look at what sixty-nine-year-old Edmonton East, Conservative MP, Peter Goldring had to say in response to allegations of harassment made recently by two female New Democrat MPs against two male Liberal MPs, who have since been suspended from their caucus and then take a look at Ms. Leslie’s response to his statement was.

Peter Goldring’s statement: “It will not be good enough to simply say that your intentions were honorable and you were just inviting a colleague to your apartment at two in the morning to play a game of Scrabble at the end of a day of playing sports and drinking. MPs must learn, as I have from encounters with authority figures in the past, that all do not tell the truth. I now wear ‘protection’ in the form of body-worn video recording equipment. I suggest that others do so too, particularly because some accusers hide behind a shield of supposed credibility which many times is not, and sometimes even hide behind a cloak of anonymity, which conceals their shameful indiscretion and complicity.”

Megan Leslie’s response: Megan Leslie called Goldring’s comments “preposterous” during an interview on CBC News Network’s Power & Politics Wednesday evening. She said his statement trivialized a very serious issue. Megan Leslie says, “I’ll take a deep breath and say that ‘accusers’ is code for ‘women.’ This is slut-shaming at its finest … the idea of ‘she asked for it,’ a lack of credibility about a woman coming forward.”

What I am saying is that from what I have been seeing, reading and hearing from MPs like Megan Leslie, NDP leader Tom Mulcair, the PMO and Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, is that in Canada male MPs faced with what amounts to total character assignation, via very detailed, serious, career ending allegations being leveled at them via press interviews being given by a female accuser hiding behind the protection of anonymity, only have the right to remain silent and if they choose not to avail themselves of that right it will be forced upon them, by their colleagues and those who could harm their careers. Consider for a moment that:

They have been named publicly and no one gives a damn whether, or how it hurts them, be it personally, politically, or financially.

After all parties are asked not to talk publicly and agree to handle the problem privately, one of the female accusers gives an interview in which she tells her account of what happens in the press in a very graphic manner and everyone says that it is within her rights to do so if she wishes, but the accused must still respect her right not to be named publicly.

No charges need to be laid, no supporting evidence produced by the accusers and no trial seems to be required for the accused to be punished in this kangaroo court, where justice is sought only to appease public outrage.

The 2 males have become collateral damage in a war to get the conversation of harassment and sexual harassment of women in the workplace started and no politician will risk doing what is right for fear of the political fallout in an election year.

Everyone is talking about getting a policy in place to deal with these types of allegations in the future and in my opinion ignoring the fact that this current harassment case has not been resolved and we still have 2 alleged victims and 2 very real victims of this mess under tremendous pressure that is threatening to ruin all of their lives. I think that MPs like Megan Leslie, Tom Mulcair, the PMO and Liberal leader Justin Trudeau who think that only women need to be treated fairly in circumstances such as these are wrong, because the law is supposed to be the same for every one; blind to gender, race and things of this nature. To treat women like they do not lie, like it appears Megan Leslie is suggesting seems ‘preposterous,’ to me.

The standards of proof required to achieve a guilty or innocent verdict, the legal requirement for the accuser to prove their case and the blindness of the justice system are not mistakes; they are the checks and balance that ensure that all of us get a fair trial. In Canada we hear all too often now on the news how charges will be brought against someone, not based on facts or evidence, but instead because of public outrage, or demand for vengeance and mob justice must be appeased. We have lawyers and judges to guide us through court cases and arrive a decisions of guilt or innocence based solely on evidence brought forward by both sides within the legal framework of the law. This means these professionals look past the emotion, exaggeration and personal biases and prejudices that each side brings to the table and advise, judge and eventually arrive at a decision to absolve or punish based solely by what the law dictates. Canadians may not always agree with the courts decisions, but at the very least both sides get to be heard. What we have now are parliamentarians taking the law into their own hands and becoming the judge, jury and executioner. I would ask why the accusers were not referred to the police and the matter left to the courts to resolve, where those trained to handle such matters could have done their job?

Answer This Question For Me: Why did the NDP female MP now giving interviews feel that it was more important to tell the public just how much the sex hurt, rather than take the opportunity to:

Say that she had indeed said ‘no’ to him?

Explain how she fought him off unsuccessfully?

Was too drunk to consent?

Had been drugged by him?

How he threatened her in some way?

how he forced her to remain quiet while he had his way with her?

Answer me this, if her giving interviews as some suggest is about taking control of the story, why would she not mention anything that he did that night that would indicate unwanted sex, rather than just bad sex, or regrets the morning after? The question for Canadians to answer is, are these legitimate questions, or are they “slut-shaming at its finest,” as NDP MP Megan Leslie seems to be suggesting in my opinion?